Jump to content
tanknet.org

Hms Queen Elizabeth


Recommended Posts

All very interesting, thanks for that JJ.

 

Here is an interesting article, saying the procurement of the carrier support ships has been stalled, possibly to reflag them as warships so we can dodge the EU procurement rules.....

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/mod-scraps-deal-build-hms-3509809

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well no, not really. Its an A model in most respects, other than G load and fuel load. We have discussed fuel load before, its somewhat irrelevant if they use external tanking and any tankers in the operational theatre. G load, well the Tomcat had a G load of 6.5 G, about 0.5 g more than the F35B. And one has to ask how useful G load will be when your airplane is supposed to be invisible and has the worlds current longest range AA missile hanging off it.

 

There is a fixation that all STOVL aircraft have to be inadequate. I dont believe this is the case. This arguably had STOVL shoehorned into it, but otherwise its a fully capable 21st Century fighter. We really must not sell it short here.

 

The Carriers were delivered on time, I certainly dont recall any discussion of delays. Besides, we may yet get RAF Harriers operating off it, flown by the USMC.....

B is heavier, slower, carries less fuel, doesn't have a gun, less stealthy, more expensive to acquire and operate than A. I really don't see any land user buying B. We are talking about 20 to 30% cut on force levels with B. Pretty much nobody is willing to take such cut from already sparse numbers just to gain STOVL.

B is of course impressive for STOVL fighter and I believe will be acquired to more navies for STOVL carrier capability like Harrier was, it's not like there is real competition in the niche. But I doubt land users are interested, just like with Harriers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well no, not really. Its an A model in most respects, other than G load and fuel load. We have discussed fuel load before, its somewhat irrelevant if they use external tanking and any tankers in the operational theatre. G load, well the Tomcat had a G load of 6.5 G, about 0.5 g more than the F35B. And one has to ask how useful G load will be when your airplane is supposed to be invisible and has the worlds current longest range AA missile hanging off it.

 

There is a fixation that all STOVL aircraft have to be inadequate. I dont believe this is the case. This arguably had STOVL shoehorned into it, but otherwise its a fully capable 21st Century fighter. We really must not sell it short here.

 

The Carriers were delivered on time, I certainly dont recall any discussion of delays. Besides, we may yet get RAF Harriers operating off it, flown by the USMC.....

B is heavier, slower, carries less fuel, doesn't have a gun, less stealthy, more expensive to acquire and operate than A. I really don't see any land user buying B. We are talking about 20 to 30% cut on force levels with B. Pretty much nobody is willing to take such cut from already sparse numbers just to gain STOVL.

B is of course impressive for STOVL fighter and I believe will be acquired to more navies for STOVL carrier capability like Harrier was, it's not like there is real competition in the niche. But I doubt land users are interested, just like with Harriers.

 

F35B can still carry a gun, the RAF website indicates this. The only question remains whether, like the Harrier, whether we will chose to procure it.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/f-35b-lightning/

 

Its certainly more expensive to operate than an A, but quite clearly less expensive to operate than a C when you take into considering the equipment and personnel to operate CATOBAR equipment. As we are keen to operate from a ship, the difference of the B to the C is the important bit. For one thing its lighter, and its never going to be beat up by arrested landings, with all the costs that brings to an aircraft.

 

Ive personally read nothing that says its less stealthy or slower, but if you can provide a link Ill read it with interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So even if we bought the C model and a conventional carrier, we would still have had gun pods.

 

Ill admit the range be an issue in naval warfare, but its not as if they would be incapable of fitting for buddy refuelling.

 

In naval warfare (as unlikely as that may be) the lack of an anti ship missile on UK JSFs is a bigger problem than lack of range. SPEAR Capability 3 will help remedy that, as long as we don't buy the unpowered SDB II to meet the requirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well no, not really. Its an A model in most respects, other than G load and fuel load. We have discussed fuel load before, its somewhat irrelevant if they use external tanking and any tankers in the operational theatre. G load, well the Tomcat had a G load of 6.5 G, about 0.5 g more than the F35B. And one has to ask how useful G load will be when your airplane is supposed to be invisible and has the worlds current longest range AA missile hanging off it.

 

There is a fixation that all STOVL aircraft have to be inadequate. I dont believe this is the case. This arguably had STOVL shoehorned into it, but otherwise its a fully capable 21st Century fighter. We really must not sell it short here.

 

The Carriers were delivered on time, I certainly dont recall any discussion of delays. Besides, we may yet get RAF Harriers operating off it, flown by the USMC.....

B is heavier, slower, carries less fuel, doesn't have a gun, less stealthy, more expensive to acquire and operate than A. I really don't see any land user buying B. We are talking about 20 to 30% cut on force levels with B. Pretty much nobody is willing to take such cut from already sparse numbers just to gain STOVL.

B is of course impressive for STOVL fighter and I believe will be acquired to more navies for STOVL carrier capability like Harrier was, it's not like there is real competition in the niche. But I doubt land users are interested, just like with Harriers.

Slower? Slightly worse acceleration but same max speed. Less stealthy? According to who?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So even if we bought the C model and a conventional carrier, we would still have had gun pods.

 

Ill admit the range be an issue in naval warfare, but its not as if they would be incapable of fitting for buddy refuelling.

 

In naval warfare (as unlikely as that may be) the lack of an anti ship missile on UK JSFs is a bigger problem than lack of range. SPEAR Capability 3 will help remedy that, as long as we don't buy the unpowered SDB II to meet the requirement.

 

 

RN Admirals seem pretty assured that isnt a problem, although im not sure what they have in mind. I have to agree, SPEAR is probably the best option on offer, but there is an existing capablity we can buy off the peg in a hurry if we feel the need.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/japans-f-35-stealth-fighters-get-new-standoff-anti-ship-capability/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, its the Royal Navy's way. All fairly understated.

 

The relieving captain was himself relieved it will be remembered, under unfortunate circumstances. If I were the next captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth, Id tell the MOD to stick their car.

https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/17/hms-queen-elizabeth-co-relieved-over-misuse-of-official-car/

 

Captain Kyd (was there ever a better name for the captain of an RN Carrier?) is now Rear Admiral Kyd, RN Fleet Commander. Well deserved seeing he did such a great job of getting the ship into service.

https://navaltoday.com/2019/03/08/former-hms-queen-elizabeth-co-becomes-royal-navys-new-fleet-commander/

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, its the Royal Navy's way. All fairly understated.

 

The relieving captain was himself relieved it will be remembered, under unfortunate circumstances. If I were the next captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth, Id tell the MOD to stick their car.

https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/17/hms-queen-elizabeth-co-relieved-over-misuse-of-official-car/

 

Captain Kyd (was there ever a better name for the captain of an RN Carrier?) is now Rear Admiral Kyd, RN Fleet Commander. Well deserved seeing he did such a great job of getting the ship into service.

https://navaltoday.com/2019/03/08/former-hms-queen-elizabeth-co-becomes-royal-navys-new-fleet-commander/

There may have been more to this; getting sacked over 'unofficial' use of a car is a bit steep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HMS Queen ElizabethVerified account @HMSQNLZ 15h15 hours ago

A great shot to add to @AdmTonyRadakin's post below & another first for #WESTLANT19 as we bring our renewed Carrier Strike Group capability online. A double Replenishment at Sea (RAS), with some fantastic bridge work from @RFATideforce @HMSNORT and our own great team here.

EJL96FCXYAIrQqi.jpg

 

EJMRxxSU0AECUau.jpg

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

HMS Queen ElizabethVerified account @HMSQNLZ 15h15 hours ago

Welcome to the Queen Elizabeth Carrier Strike Group, USS Philippine Sea and USS Truxtun @USNavy. The Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser and Arleigh Burke-class destroyer have joined us as #UKF35 jet trials continue in the USA #WESTLANT19 #jointcapability @RoyalNavy

EJMPOc4U4AA2CHD.jpg

EJMPOdAU8AAPzE4.jpg

EJMPOc_U0AEC6kI.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...